Carbon Brief has conducted an assessment of priority issues for various parties at COP29 and compiled into an interactive table.

Archived copies of the article:

• archive.today
• web.archive.org
• ghostarchive.org

Note that archived copies will not contain the latest results; you may need to make a fresh archived copy.

Title & subtitle taken from the article version of this newsletter.

If you're a US citizen, make sure you vote

Days ahead of the U.N.’s global negotiations on climate change, China and other developing countries said trade restrictions should be part of the talks.

Archived copies of the article:

• archive.today
• web.archive.org
• ghostarchive.org

Archived copies of the article:

• archive.today
• web.archive.org

Archived copy of the article

There is an archived copy of the article here

I think they're covering scope 1 and 2 emissions, but not scope 3. That is to say that they're trying to limit emissions during extraction, transportation of fossil fuels, and refining (and from the electricity those use) but not from when the fossil fuels are burned.

The Biden administration has approved more than $2.3 billion for those affected by Hurricanes Milton and Helene. Studies show the system for distributing the funds deepens historical divides.

Archived copy of the article

If you're a US citizen, and have not yet voted, please see IWillVote.com to find out where to vote.

TLDR: Pasture in former forestland, such as New England, can quickly be returned to forest, soaking up carbon. There is an interesting opportunity for synergy here, as removing cattle from a relatively small amount of land can have outsized impacts compared to the larger grazing areas in the prairie by pairing the removal of cattle with reforestation. These high opportunity areas could be a highly effective investment and much more financially and politically feasible.

Study discussed in article: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2405758121

I do not believe this includes scope 3 emissions.

Archived copy of the article:

Opponents — including plenty of former global warming deniers who have rebranded themselves as economic pragmatists — have cast these steps as too ambitious, too costly or both. Which is to say, we can’t afford to save the planet.

To put it as soberly as we can, it’s that same old suicidal nonsense recast to pass for common sense.

Archived copy of the article